Reflections of a multidimensional sunbaked servant of the Most High. Powered by Loveforce. Emitting Soulforce.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Religion and Secular State – A reflection presented at the 2013 Attorney-General’s Conference Natadola, Fiji 6th December 2013

Good afternoon
Ladies and Gentlemen.

I am thankful
for the opportunity given to the faith communities to share our perspectives on
the issue of Religion and the SecularState.

I would like to
begin by acknowledging that there has been some concern about the implications
of the provisions in the new constitution which touch on religion, or exclude
references to faith and the divine in the 1997 Constitution’s Preamble and
Chapter 1, Section 5 on religion and the state.

While Fijians
may be aware of the term “secular”, from its use in describing certain modern
societies, this is the first time they are encountering it as a description of
the state in relation to Fiji.

The question
one fellow Fijian asked me was, “How can we have a secular state when we don’t
have a secular society?” It was certainly pause for reflection on my part.

How
does one invoke or develop a
sense of sacredness about a document that may enshrine Fiji as a secular nation, given
that the terms sacred and secular are often used to describe two distinct areas
of life?

What separates
the sacred from the secular in a society that attaches sacred values to
leadership, community, land and the environment?

Essayist Peter
Saint-Andre writing of the modern dilemma of sacred versus secular writes of a
concept of natural religion argues that “the concept of the sacred runs deep in the human
mind, and that at least some "religious" concepts are potentially
universal. We all share in our nature as human beings, and there is much more
that we have in common than is peculiar to each one of us.”[i]

Saint-Andre adds that, “the increasing respect for
human rights in the world provides a good example of an ethical belief that is
founded on a universal conception of sacredness.”[ii]

From a
psychological perspective, the primitive understanding of the divine begins
with the development of the super-ego [iii]

The
point to note here is that the divine, the sacred, and so on, are spiritual
concepts,
which exist so that the human consciousness may have the fullest understanding
of existence. Such concepts have been
and continue to be necessary, because, in the words of Saint-Andre, “they pick
out aspects of human existence that no other concepts can.”[iv]

Religion
is not merely a sociological construct, satisfying an emotional need, but
provides knowledge on ethical behaviour as found in religious writing over the
centuries and millennia on justice, peace and morality.

According to
Roger Haight, while there is a dimension of each person’s faith that is
individual and uniquely his or her own, it cannot remain merely or purely
private, it inevitably and inescapably shares in the public sphere.

This is because
the object of faith concerns ultimate truth or truths and as such both the
nature of truth and its ultimacy demand that faith become a public act. Faith
and religion by extension have both a personal and public dimension. [v]

While
there are different concepts of the divine, different worldviews and a differing
in understanding on the need, process and source of salvation among the
different religions in the world, some vastly different; there are some
universalities which ring true across the different faith traditions.

Indeed, the
increasing respect for human rights in the world provides a good example of an
ethical belief that is founded on a universal conception of sacredness.In spite of divergent philosophical
views, it is possible to understand and approach religious traditions on the
basis of common traits such as love of one's neighbour, kindness, and
compassion.

For
example if I was to say: “This
is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto
you,” I would in fact be quoting the Mahabharata[vi].

“Regard your
neighbour’s gain as your gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss,”[vii]
is from Taoism; while the saying, “No one of you is a believer until he desires
for his brother that which he desires for himself,”[viii]
is from Islam.

“The Golden
Rule” of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is also found in
the Christian faith (Matthew 7:1), Confucianism (Analects 12:2), Buddhism
(Udana-Varga 5,1), Judaism (Talmud,
Shabbat 3id), Zoroastrianism (Dadisten-I-dinik, 94) as well as Jain, Sikh and
Baha’i faiths among others.[ix]

The simple fact
in Fiji
is that religion and a life of conformity with a religious conviction is or has
remained of significance for people. A Fijian with his or her religious or
non-religious conviction is at the same time a member of society and a citizen
of the state.

As a
consequence religion and the negation of religion from a secular perspective
are in fact interwoven with state and society.

I acknowledge
the necessity of a clear boundary in that the state is and has to be neutral in
religious and world-view matters. The consequences of this neutrality are the
principle of parity, which is the principle of the equal treatment of religions
and
religious communities, and religious pluralism, including agnostic and
atheistic movements that are also protected by the fundamental right of
religious freedom.

The
constitution dictates that as a secular state there ought to be a sort of
neutrality on the issue of religion. However, public institutions work
according to a set of values whether they acknowledge them or not. So when they
claim to be neutral with regards to religious or other beliefs, that is a myth
at best and a lie at worst.

It would seem
that what is really happening is that religious values are being explicitly
excluded from the public square while secular ones are allowed to hold sway. So
what actually happens when we seek neutrality and demand that everyone talks a
common, neutral language of the civic sphere is that religious voices are
effectively silenced.

Although in
theory everyone enters the public square on an equal footing, the fact is that
its discourse is an implicitly naturalistic, atheist one, which means that the
non-religious can talk as they normally do, whereas the religious have to hold
back, rephrase and avoid expressing many of the things that most matter to
them.

Secularism is
not and should not pretend to be "neutral" in various important
respects. Most obviously, it clearly asserts the values that are widely shared
among the otherwise diverse population, such as tolerance, freedom of
expression, rule of law and so on.

It can also
treat different faiths and sects differently depending on how benign or malign
they are, which is why some countries deny privileges to some groups such as
Scientology and the Unification Movement enjoyed by other faiths.

Nor does this
kind of neutrality mean, in effect, always imposing one set of values on
everyone.

A secular
society should allow for a plurality of ways of living as long as these do not
compromise the common good, and these may include religious practices or
traditions, such as those surrounding mediation in disputes.

The
"neutrality" of a secular society is therefore of a very limited and
specific sort, and that is precisely its strength. Being clear about the nature
and limits of this impartiality is essential if we are to make the case that
political secularism isn't just a vehicle for ever more social secularisation.

For
example, what happens when there's a rising tide of religious sentiment in a
state that is officially secular? How should governments respond to the demands
or desires of a population that wants more religion in its public discourse,
even its laws?

I would like to
suggest an alternative view of religion to that as set out in the section on
the SecularState
in Fiji’s
new constitution:

1.Religion
is not a private matter, when and in so far as it is not only related to the
individual and her or his relations to God (or whatever other term is used for
the divine, the absolute, the sacred, or the unknown), but also demands
responsibility for an appropriate societal environment corresponding to the
respective religious teaching. The same also applies to those who have an
agnostic or atheistic view and who postulate freedom from religion, and they
also struggle for a societal content which goes along with their conviction.

2.In a
democracy, believers and non-believers will use all democratic instruments to
influence and to shape the societal and political opinion and decision-making
processes, in order to promote and implement their religiously or non-religiously
motivated concept of state and society.

3. The consequence of the two above-mentioned
aspects is that religion, and its negation, are visible in the state and
society, and that the public space is neither entirely free, nor can it be kept
free of religion or its negation.[x]

What must be
acknowledged in this process is the commitment by religious communities to the
nurturing of a civil society and the common good.

As an example,
the churches in the Pacific, Fiji included were at the forefront of shaping
public attitudes and influencing policies in support of a self-determining and
nuclear free Pacific. Recently, in the face of the negative aspects of economic
globalisation churches collaborated to offer alternative visions of society
base on Christian values. One could argue that these so call private values are
in fact institutional and important to society. By engaging with what it
perceives as a competing vision competing, speaking out against the negative
effects economic globalization has becomes an expression of defiance against
the emerging global system of domination, of one ideology, one political
system, one international coalition of the wealthy and the powerful.

One
of the key challenges that I see in the issue of religion and a secular state
is the issue of communication and language. While religious communities will
need to accept their voice as one among many in the marketplace and to be able
to articulate their contribution to social justice and the common good in a
secular language, the state must be willing to also hear and correctly
interpret statements that speak about compassion, loving kindness and brother and sisterhood as not just
language of the heart or religion, but concrete expressions of the type of
society that many Fijians want to live in. The secular ear must still be tuned
to the language of religious and cultural symbols through which many Fijians
express themselves.

I would like to
conclude with some remarks from a Methodist perspective. John Wesley the
founder of the Methodist movement wrote that, “The gospel of Christ knows of no
religion but social; no holiness but social holiness. ‘Faith working by love’
is the length and breadth and depth and height of Christian perfection.” [xi] Methodists believe that as followers of
Christ they are called to be ‘salt’ and ‘light’ and ‘leaven,’ – theological
concepts that are essentially social functions, argues Wesley, and for this
reason we are not to restrict ourselves to associating only with Christians.
Holiness is not an avoidance of the world but a challenge to it.[xii]

For the
Methodist Church to have a prophetic voice in Fiji, therefore, means speaking
the truth, in love, and responding to
the issues of injustice, poverty, of peace, of making the church home for
everybody in the household of God and being concerned about society. It means
acting as an agent of a God whom we consider liberative to address the
legitimation of oppressive structures. Thus there will always be a social and
political aspect to our expression of faith.

While today is
an opportunity for us discuss clarify any misconceptions that may exist,
perhaps this is also an example of what can happen then there is an openness to
listen and share from both sides of the “religious” and “secular” divide. This
cannot be just a one-off event but a challenge for continuous dialogue so that
we can learn each other’s languages, and find ways to work together for the
common good.

Thank you again
for your patience.

May God bless
you all and bless Fiji.

Vinaka
vakalevu, Shukriya, Thank you.

APPENDIX

Secularism
taken to an extreme level:

·Banning religious education and enforcement
of teaching of universal secular values in education

·Phasing out government funding for
religious schools

·Removing religious references from
statutory oaths and pledges – No more “blessing grant of God of Nations”…. What
of the coat of arms … Rerevaka na Kalou ka doka na Tui…

·Abolishing parliamentary prayers /

·Ending state support for religious
institutions and personnel – no more chaplains in the military, police, prison

·Removal of Religious Holidays from the list
of Public Holidays.

·Banning wearing of religious attire in
school or public –

law
2004-228 of 15 March 2004 …

concerning, as an application of the
principle of the separation of church and state, the wearing of symbols or garb
which show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools"

The law does
not mention any particular symbol, and thus bans all Christian (veil, signs),
Muslim (veil, signs), Sikh (turban, signs) Jewish and other religions'
signs. It is however considered by many to specifically target the wearing
of headscarves (a khimar, considered by most Muslims to be an obligatory
article of faith as part of hijab ["modesty"])
byMuslim schoolgirls. For this reason, it is occasionally referred to as
the French headscarf ban in the foreign press.